[GRASS5] bugs

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:19:14AM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:30:00PM +1300, Hamish wrote:
> ...
> > > > I think we need to have some sort of "confirmed", "unreproducable",
> > > > or "new" tag column for bugs, so we can separate out valid bugs from
> > > > misconfigured systems at least, giving a more realistic bug number.
> > > 
> > > or, old and unreproducible bugs could be just squashed?
> > 
> > GRASS is a huge program with many rare bugs. One can never test all
> > platforms/setups, so you can never say unreproducible==mistaken report.
> > Even if it is a mistake, if one person did it, others might as well, and
> > the others in the future might figure it out & post a solution.
> > Just deleting the contributed user experience would be a big mistake,
> > IMO.
> 
> That's generally right, but RT should not become a museum for
> unresolved bugs of old GRASS versions.

I agree with both statements, but I think Hamish also agreed that
we need to clean out, what we can clean out. 

Markus: Can empty the very old BUGS file from CVS then?
Can we completely empty it? I only want to make sure because it says:
You are maintaining it and I don't know if there is any bug in there
that is not in the RT. You would know best.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20050228/8c9981f7/attachment.bin